Yes, we will see. Certainly, in this case it was helpful to have the warning up front that there was no return value. >-----Original Message----- >From: Len Brown [mailto:lenb@xxxxxxxxxx] >Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:27 PM >To: Moore, Robert >Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki; James Bottomley; Jesse Barnes; linux- >acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel >Subject: RE: [PATCH] Subject: Prevent acpi_run_osc from using NULL objects >(was: Re: Oops in ACPI with git latest) > > > >> We've just recently deployed a new module that validates the inputs and >outputs >> for the predefined ACPI methods (Those that start with underscore). >> >> That is the source of these messages: >> >> > > ACPI Warning (nspredef-0252): \_SB_.PCI0._OSC: Parameter count >mismatch - ASL declared 5, expected 4 [20080926] >> > > ACPI Error (nspredef-0163): \_SB_.PCI0._OSC: Missing expected return >value [20080926] >> >> For the initial version of this module, we only output messages when the >inputs and/or >> outputs don't match the requirements of the ACPI specification. >> >> We can change this to returning exceptions in the future. > >I expect we're going to have a bunch of false positives with this one, >and indeed may need to even pare the warnings back to only >when CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG, or acpi=strict or something. > >-Len -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
